RECENT  POSTS:  » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/29/2014

Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law

by Jeremy Hooper

Screen Shot 2014-08-29 At 3.16.34 Pm Earlier this week, I showed you how WND (formerly WorldNetDaily) founder and very anti-gay person Joseph Farah was using all kinds of easy-to-counter hypotheticals in order to diminish the case for fair nondiscrimination protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual consumers. Now he's back with an even worse talking point:

The fact is that to bestow special legal rights and privileges to minority groups based on their sexual orientation is de facto discrimination against the sexual orientation of the majority. It’s literally the tyranny by the minority, which is at least as bad, if not worse, than tyranny by the majority.

Let’s be intellectually honest: If we insist on having laws protecting people based on their “sexual orientation,” they should be protecting all people based on their sexual orientation, not just the vocal minority.
FULL: I guess I hit a 'gay' nerve [WND]

I'm frankly a little shocked to see Mr. Farah making such an obtuse argument, particularly in a post wherein he purports to set his critics right.

The truth, of course, is that heterosexuality is 100%, in every way as protected as LGB sexual orientations are (or should be). You can apply any of the headline-grabbing nondiscrimination cases and equally apply them to straight customers. If a photographer chooses to discrimination against a man and woman because they object to their heterosexual union and/or "lifestyle," then that is the same situation as the one that landed Elane Photography in hot water. If a baker refuses a wedding cake specifically because it's a man and woman getting married, then that baker just frosted his or her way into a legal problem. If an innkeeper denies a room to a straight couple because he or she fears the duo might join the majority of heterosexuals who engage in their own "sodomy," then that innkeeper very likely violated the straight couple's rights. Etcetera, etcetera. Straight people have scientifically-recongized sexual orientations, just like LGB people; all fall under nondiscrimination laws that protect on the basis of sexual orientation.

And it goes without saying (or should) that we LGBT activists are 100%, in every way okay with these protections based on heterosexuals' sexual orientation. In fact, we insist! It's actually a talking point for us, not Mr. Farah. When we fight for these protections (and hate crimes laws, employment protections, or other policy based on sexual orientation), we are not only fighting for ourselves but for *everyone.* It's the category of sexual orientation itself that we are safeguarding, not just certain members who fall within it. We're for ending *both* forms of tyranny—both the fake, not-at-all-happening one that enrages Mr. Farah and the gross one he and his political movement have turned into a supposed social good.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails